Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

is fusion operation the same as the paper? #112

Open
fortunechen opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

is fusion operation the same as the paper? #112

fortunechen opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@fortunechen
Copy link

fortunechen commented Apr 2, 2019

According to the original paper:
We add a 1 × 1 convolution layer on top of pool4 to produce additional class predictions. We fuse this output with the predictions computed on top of conv7 (convolutionalized fc7) at stride 32 by adding a 2× upsampling layer and summing6 both predictions (see Figure 3).

As my understanding, your implemtation is trying to fuse the pool4 feature directly rather than the logit result from pool4 feature. In FCN.py, line114:
fuse_1 = tf.add(conv_t1, image_net["pool4"], name="fuse_1")

After I read a similar issue here, I still dont think it is the same as the paper. For example, if we want to get the result of FCN16 and we already constructed the FCN version of VGG, which means we have the conv6, conv7 and conv8(logits) .

As your operation, we should do following extra operation:
1, deconv the conv8 (extra para num: H*W*NUM_CLASS*512)
2, fuse_1 = deconv_conv8 + pool4
3, get result (H*W*512*NUM_CLASS)

As paper, we should :
1, get result from pool4(extra para num: H*W*NUM_CLASS*512)
2, fusion the two result above

Am I wrong? Thanks !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant